President Obama’s State of the Union address was mostly more of the same call for more government involvement in Americans’ lives.

Knowledgeable political observers suggested President Obama’s State of the Union address probably would be the most important speech of his next four years in the White House.

This was the speech in which he would set his agenda for his second term, enthuse and inspire the public and energize members of Congress to work for the best interests of the country.

By the time of his next State of the Union address, the 2014 elections will be center stage, partisan politics will color most legislative actions and Obama will be closer to being a lame-duck president. For these reasons, Tuesday’s speech was where Obama would have his best opportunity to inspire the nation.

Unfortunately, listeners and viewers didn’t hear many new or exciting ideas and/or programs. It was a rerun of many Obama speeches over the past four years calling for a greater role for the federal government in the lives of most Americans. There was little excitement or enthusiasm and the usual mantra of the rich versus the poor, the middle class versus the have-nots and that most challenges this nation faces can be best solved and improved by government actions and policies.

Often Obama seemed to adopt the role of a very positive, confident, if not arrogant, teacher or professor lecturing his students. He knows he is a gifted speaker, but there is reason to wonder whether this magic has worn thin. There was little truly inspiring or memorable about this speech, which was to have been so important to his presidency.

His supporters will say it was a great and moving presentation, and his critics will say it was ho-hum, just more of the same.

This is too bad because the country needs strong, visionary and challenging leadership and a leader who is truly committed to working in a genuine manner with all interests and both political parties.

He asked his “students” to set aside special party interests. Based on his first four years in office, Obama has not shown any desire to set aside party interests. His agenda for the next four years will be designed to inject greater government involvement at all levels of our society.

He is trying to create a legacy of “changing America,” which he championed in his 2004 campaign efforts.

There are ample examples to question whether Obama’s changes are good or healthy for the country. Based on his Tuesday address, it is clear he intends to push for more government in every facet of our society, no matter the cost — the “cost” in dollar and cents, the “cost” of a growing national debt, and the “cost” of our loss of freedoms.

"He may HAVE well.." NOT "of well". I get so tired of people substituting of for have. Substituting your for you're and getting there, they're and their confused are common mistakes. I do that myself on occasion. I can forgive that. But not using of for have. They don't even sound alike.

I'll wager that ksfbcoach can't define socialism as it's used in this comment.

Because there is nothing in Obama's actions that even approach an actual understanding / definition of "socialism" as the term is used by educated individuals.

One wonders why commenters make use of terms they cannot define.

Lastly, I'll further wager that ksfbcoach is wholly unable to provide evidence and a rational well-constructed argument for his claim that President Obama is the "worst" of all the Presidents we've ever had. It's easy to make sweeping assertions: actually providing your thinking and argumentation (in math they call it "showing your work") is another thing entire which few people can actually do.

Prove me wrong, ksfbcoach. Compare and contrast all the Presidents we've had in the United States, and demonstrate your assertion that President Obama is "the worst."

Well, maybe the writer(s) should look at the government just here in Kansas. How is that "less government" thing shaping up here ???? Seems like everyday there is some new phase of our lives the legislature wants to get involved in - and not in a good way. Oh, but they don't want to pay for it - that will be up to the locals to raise property/sales taxes.

The Dolph written editorials are obvious. I don't need a by-line. What makes them so obvious is that they're all based on ideology and have little to do with the real world. He's the poster boy (heehee, I made a pun) for the "Obama is a Muslim, Communist, Socialist, Fascist" crowd. And invariably they are singularly lacking in hard data.
Nothing to see here, move along.

"greater role for the federal government in the lives of most Americans." I am hanging this one on the dolphster. Big government is only big government when his guy didn't win. Even when he has to make it up. Now, if his guy wins, truly big government imposed in our lives doesn't count. Abortion anyone. Manipulation of voting rights anyone. on and on and on .....................
...................

I'm sure glad republicans don't want big government to play a greater role in the lives of people...oh, but what about vaginal sonograms??? ...and what about republicans wanting to place big government between women and their doctors?? ...and what about republicans wanting big government to only interfere with labor union's political speech but not commerce's political speech??? ...and what about republicans wanting big government to make some people have to wait in long lines just to vote???

The American Taliban's...err...oops..the Tea Party's slogan is: "Don't tread on me as I tread on you".

"His agenda for the next four years will be designed to inject greater government involvement at all levels of our society."
Given the seventy page omnibus anti-abortion bill introduced into committee last week, I find this one particularly ironic. And let's not forget things like school financing, union busting and taking over the judiciary while their preachers pray for our lost souls (which I didn't was lost) like we're recalcitrant children. If that isn't "all levels of society", I don't know what is.

People in America need jobs which means the USA cannot wait another 4 years. Congress has options therefore there is no reason to repeat the performance of the past 4 years. Millions of jobs that cannot be outsourced will provide new economic growth thus squashing any Fiscal Cliff forever. As of now there is another on the horizon….90 days.

This GOP will hold millions upon millions upon millions of jobless Americans hostage so they can play their games. It's time for democrats to step up to the plate and stop playing this game. It's time to move forward and cut the nonsense.

Unfortunately ALEC and a large majority of the republican party got married to the idea that working class blue and white collars make too much money. Talk about living in glass houses. Right to Work means lower wages.

ALEC and Repubs Busting unions is about YOU and me working for less money Union or NOT = monster corporate profits!!.

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that.

Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws that govern your rights.

In ALEC's own words, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state. DO YOU?

Well, where does the money come from?? The question is valid! We still have only half the population paying for all that Mr. Obama wants. We tax people with a $100K income almost 33% of it not counting payroll tax. How much more?

Yes, many of the things the president wants are desirable. In fact it would be nice if we all earned incomes over $200K. We don't and desirable things must compete with all else. You may want more for food. Others may want more for security. Both are valid desires.

The Soviet Union did provide insight into one thing. "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need" did not work very well. If you take too much everyone will become a taker and there will be no makers.

These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.

Second off, wrong again. We tax someone at the highest bracket for only that income that is above that bracket and for which they do not otherwise have deductions. We also don't tax all income the same way. Capital gains from letting someone else play with your money while you drink mint juleps are taxed at a lower rate than the paycheck somebody gets from working in the coal mine. Hence the recommendation for the "Buffet rule." Buffet pays a lower effective tax rate than does his secretary, in spite of a much larger income.

Thirdly, wrong. For 2013 the bracket for someone earning $100k is actually 28%, not 33. If you're married filing jointly, it's 25% - but only on that income above $72k after all the deductions. If you're going to pull a number out of your hat, please check to make sure you've pulled the correct number out of a hat.

Here:

$ (17,400 minus 0) x .10 : $ 1,740.00

(70,700 minus 17,400) x .15 : 7,995.00

(100,000 minus 70,700 ) x .25 : 7,325.00

Total: $ 17,060.00 - or around 17%

What the US is providing is that if you're rich enough to make your own rules, you'll whine about how horrible it is that you have to pay taxes. At all. And call everyone else jealous moochy leachers for even suggesting that maybe you should chip some of that back in. Middle income has remained steady when corrected for inflation. Upper bracket income has skyrocketed. Yes, there are people who have become a bunch of takers, but it isn't the retired pensioner or active duty soldier (both of whom may not owe income taxes this year).

Actually, no. What he wants is payed from payroll taxes too, assuming he wants medicare and social security. Some of the proposed austerity measures would either means test or cut benefits in spite of the fact that those programs are not contributing to our debt. That's completely ignoring federal excise taxes, too. I'm assuming we still want roads?

2 and 3 - Income taxes. Brackets. Learn how they work. They do not tax every dollar the same. If 33% includes other taxes, (show your math or I will continue to believe it's a number you plucked from thin air) you can no longer invoke "the 47%" (a number cherry picked from 2009 and no longer even applicable in 2013) without including other taxes, in which case the number of people who pay no taxes at all is practically zero. Your first point is irrelevant times two.

How much is enough? Clearly not what we have now, unless you'd either like to increase the deficit or send the country into a recession with the sequester. If you're going to raise taxes, raise them on the only people in this country who have seen an increase in income in real dollars in recent decades (meaning corrected for inflation.) That group is the rich.

I really do not care what you choose to believe. I get that number by adding up our taxes and dividing by how much we make - simple. Of course that does not include indirect taxes estimated by the left and right as somewhere between 5 and and 15%

I do not know your circumstances but you might try it. If you make more than the average income in Kansas, own a home and a car you are probably paying more than you think. Of course if a lot of your income is from public sources you may not be paying taxes on it at all.

I do not recall him arguing for more SS or medicare in his speech. maybe I missed it. He is calling for the chained CPI which will reduce income for seniors by 5 to 10% over time. He calls it a technical fix but their is nothing technical about it. I call it the canned dog food approach.

Actually you can obtain the most current % of non-participation in the federal income tax by using the IRS tables by cohort and low and behold somewhere between 40 and 60% do not pay federal ino0cme tax. I tend to use 50% give or take..
In my world everybody pays so everybody understands that it costs money to offer all the benefits we do.

You need to distinguish between Mr. Obama's world and Mr. Brownback's world. Mr Brownback is calling for less taxes while Mr. Obama is calling for more taxes (by eliminating deductions in a manner so far not identified). But to the taxpayer it does not matter - it is money taken from him/her and given to governments. If Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes it must come form someone and that someone will see their taxes go up. Back to my question.

You should hire a better accountant if that's the case. I'm just sayin'.

Your 47% strawmen are apparently not allowed such luxuries as home ownership, even though 2010 census data says the home ownership rate in Kansas is 69%. I didn't have a look at car ownership rates, but I'm betting it's even higher. I guess property and auto taxes only count when you're the one paying them.

The chained CPI is a cut in social security payments. A cut. On a population already finding it difficult to make ends meet. A lousy idea if you ask me, but yet another reason why payroll taxes are just as much a part of the conversation as the amount on a single line of your 1040. An amount that I absolutely guarantee you is not 33% of 100k of income unless you've got the worst accountant ever.

Would you care to keep comparing apples to oranges, or did you have yet a different spot for that goalpost?

The fact remains that a very large percentage of the population does not pay for the operation of the federal government despite your absolutely uninformed opinion that payroll taxes operate the federal government - they provide benefits to the payee. Perhaps you are referencing the loan from the truist funds to the treasury secured with bonds??

It is Mr. Obama who wants to use the chained CPI

Are you calling me a liar?? Your just do not like the reality of our current tax system on the upper half of the middle class. You just love calling for more revenue without having to specify the source!

Either you lack cognizance or you are very ideological. Mr Obama is calling for more revenue. He is also calling for new spending that will require even more revenue. More revenue will be in the form of federal income tax payments (deductions or rates).

Now the additional income taxes will fall on the people who pay that tax - the upper middle class some of whom (with bad accountants) pay about a third of their income in taxes already (not counting payroll taxes).

The tax burden is all taxes. The tax that is growing is the federal income tax. Increasing the burden on the people that pay that tax is the issue.

How much is enough and who should pay?? You argue a lot of marginal issues. What if our rate were only 29%, the question still applies.

I wonder if you even know what the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" even means, because I have no idea why you used it.

Payroll taxes do, in fact, go toward the operation of the federal government. The SSA is part of the government, and 40% of federal revenue comes in the form of payroll taxes. Just because your concept of government operation is limited to buying missiles and paying for John Boehner's health insurance doesn't mean those are the only expenses incurred by the government. Besides, what you and I pay in payroll taxes does not, in fact, go to us. It's paying for benefits of people who are currently retired or disabled. We, in turn, will be collecting benefits funded by people who are working when it's our turn to retire.

I'm calling you wrong. Whether it's because you're being deceptive or being clueless, you're wrong. You claim that you pay a 33% rate of income tax on 100k of income, or total taxes of $33,000 "not including payroll tax," and I call BS. If you're married filing jointly, you'd have an effective federal rate of under $17,000. Even lower if you did something smart like put some of that money into an IRA, deducted home mortgage interest, donated to charity, or otherwise made some tax-incentivized moves with that money. If you're paying a higher rate that that, you either did something stupid with a tax penalty like withdraw money from a pension or you're counting state taxes and property taxes in the mix, in which case that money isn't going to run the federal government either. If the tax burden is "all taxes," then there is no such thing as the 47%.

You are completely correct that the middle class are the ones who are being squeezed right now for a bill that the wealthiest should be paying. Mitt Romney pays a lower effective tax rate than you, even if you'd used a good accountant.

Actually, yes you could. Increasing the top marginal tax rate and decreasing defense spending would actually reduce the deficit pretty effectively, especially if the economy started growing again. You no longer have to spend extra money on things like food stamps and unemployment when you don't have as many people qualifying for them.

So if you're counting only federal income taxes in the 47% number, you're being a hypocrite to then complain about your overall tax bill later. You would pretty much have to be a bum in the street to not pay any share of your income in some form of tax somewhere along the line. In fact, those who are poor are likely to spend a higher percentage of their money on sales and other local and state taxes. This article argues that a single mother earning $18,000 actually has an effective rate of 88%. As in, she only takes home 12 cents on the dollar. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-25/the-working-poor-pay-high-taxes-too.html

Now we have your comment on SS. SS is a stand-alone trust fund to which people contribute and from which they draw a pension. Since they do that at different times in their lives one could argue that they pay for their predecessors and receive income from their successors. The problem is that in the 90; we set up a trust fund and those of us who have been contributing all these years not only paid for those before us but filled this trust fund to pay for ourselves. Now the fact that the government was wise enough to use that trust fund (it has limited ability to invest it) and pays it back from bonds issued on general revenue does not change the fact that one’s SS payments buy them an annuity and if one believes the government an annuity that may or may not pay more than you paid in (depends on longevity and income with the higher income contributors lass likely to receive more than they paid).
The same applies to Medicare Part A; however sorting that one out would take a lot of people quite a bit of time. Medicare not only pays the hospitals for care to those who paid into the pool but for a whole lot of other things ranging from money for nonresident emergency care to preparations for national emergencies. Sorting out what drives what is a challenge. But – the payroll tax goes in full to the hospitalization of those who are eligible for the program.
If you want to consider that the operation of the federal government – well I have a bridge to sell you. I don’t. To me the operations of the government are those things paid from the general fund which comes from personal income taxes, business taxes and a few other odds and ends. If you don’t pay federal income taxes you are not paying into that pot. That pot pays for the social safety net, the operations of the cabinet departments and associated federal agencies, for grants to state and local governments and the like
You still have not answered my question. If you and Mr. Obama want more revenue from whom does it come and how much? We are talking something on the order of $800B to a trillion dollars a year currently not covered by taxes.
Why will you not admit that all the additional revenue you and he want has to be paid for by somebody? He already hit the rich for a 4% tax increase (a dent in the overall annual deficit). Now what?

The Soviet Union did not invent the idea of "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need." Look at this precedent:

"At the moment your surplus meets their need, but one day your need may be met from their surplus. The aim is equality."

The speaker? Not Vladimir Lenin. Not Karl Marx. Not Barack Obama. It was St. Paul, in II Corinthians. Christianity has been teaching this for close to 2000 years, and it hasn't created a world in which "everyone will become a taker and there will be no makers." Quite the contrary. This ethical teaching and others like it have created the kind of social cohesion that has permitted the kind of productive, prosperous society we have.

Sorry Mr/MS C. By hard work I meant "trying". The elderly have in most cases worked most of their lives. They are deserving of help. But I resent being forced to help people who have capabilities and just do not try very hard. I really quastion your right or authority to interpret that for me.

I still want to know what this "free stuff" is. Can I get "free stuff"? Is there a catalog of "free stuff" somewhere? Does it include something other than a five year old outdated cell phone that doesn't have graphics and only dials 911?

Well, it turns out you can get a big tax break if you run an S-corp. You can also get a share of 5.4 billion dollars worth of subsidies if you run an oil company, all while turning record profits. That's some pretty good free stuff.

LOL!!! "The most divisive president in history"? I guess he held a gun to Mitch McConnell's head and made him filibuster himself, huh? I guess he was the one that forced those poor Republican congressmen to mount more filibusters than in all other administrations combined since the inception of the country, right? His mere presence is divisive. He has a divisive aura that sets up people to immediately start arguing. Yep. I guess it's that brown skin. All of that excess melanin does it.

An impartial reader need not progress beyond the first few words of this essay: "Knowledgeable political observers suggested...."

The writer owes a duty to his readers to cite examples of who these "knowledgeable political observers" are (the writer's friend? someone they heard talking on the street? a talking head on TV? Who, exactly?) and what, exactly, they "suggested."

In other words, the essayist is ethically obligated to cite their sources, not just casually refer to them.

Absent ethical argumentation, a reader owes zero duty to this writer even to finish the piece.

Had this been submitted in an essay writing class, it would've been returned as "Incomplete" and not even given a grade.

"His supporters will say it was a great and moving presentation, and his critics will say it was ho-hum, just more of the same.

This is too bad because the country needs strong, visionary and challenging leadership and a leader who is truly committed to working in a genuine manner with all interests and both political parties."

Been a while since I bothered to read Dolph's junk. Willful propaganda tends to make me aggravated. I wandered back to the award winning LJW site today, however, and have been treated to the jarring bit of nonsense quoted above.

Let's put aside the silliness of asserting that the country needs strong and challenging leadership and then also complaining that our (duly elected x2) President is leading the country to change too strenuously.

What rankles more is the sheer audacity of Dolph and the tea bagger crowd.

If a minority of the voting public agrees with you, it seems to me that here in "Amurika" those that agree with the President have it right.

The country voted. Right wing stupid lost.

You are the problem, Mr. Editor. Not the President, not the President's vision, Nor his leadership or his willingness to work with others.

Proclaiming your position more loudly, and repeatedly, does not change these things. It reveals plenty, but it does not convince.

A great Republican Party President once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Hmmmm, wonder why so many of today's "republican" party faithful adhere to this advise.

How much "free stuff" did Brownback get as subsidies for his family's farm over the years? Well over a fifty thousand dollars ~ and more than 600 thousand for his father and brother's farm, if I recall correctly. Maybe he shouldn't farm if he has to resort to mooching from the public trough to make ends meet.

In this editorial you focus on what you perceive President Obama's shortcomings to be, while Kansas is bleeding again thanks to your governor and legislature. Your great Free State is going down the toilet because it has become so conservative it is self-destructive. Better that this paper should address the fact that Kansas is becoming a laughing stock because its governor is a whack job. It is a shame because Kansas people are some of friendliest and most honest in the nation. But, boy, are they poorly led. You should write about what passes for leadership in Kansas before you attack President Obama.

Mr and Mfrs C I am down here because the typ is becoming too hard to read.

OK it is wrong for me to cite an overall tax rate in arguing that the upper middle pays a great deal while asking how much more you want from them - never answered
It is wrong for me to observe that about 50% pay no federal income tax - a defensible fact.
It is wrong for me to draw distinctions between taxes paid for obvious personal aggrandizement (payroll taxes) and taxes paid to run the government.
It is wrong for me to note that somebody has to pay for the additional funds needed for the additional programs Mr. Obama has proposed. We will just borrow
It is wrong for me to observe that our current annual federal expenditures (income taxes) is almost twice what we take in

Yes all will be great. We will gut defense, tax the rich a bit more and an improving economy will make up the rest. Maybe in your world but not in mine.. Perhaps you mean we hold expenditures at current rates and wait fifteen years to finally have an annual balanced budget again. Perhaps you have some data by somebody other than the left to support your position?

Clearly, there is no reconciling our positions. As a SS recipient I would love to believe that we can do it all and no sacrifices will be needed. So I hope you are right but all my experience informs me that blinded optimism will never overcome harsh reality.

I might point out that the chained CPI will cut the deficit by about $200B dollars over a generation. I suspect that this is the Democratic Parties real solution - stick it to the middle.